Despite my strong prompting towards soccer, my nine-year son decided to play flag football this year. He just finished his first season and like any good parent, I’m left asking, “How do we analyze whether this sport and its players are morally good?”
Thankfully, there’s this thing called ethics. Ethics is a field of philosophy that examines what we (moral agents) should do and how we should conduct ourselves. How do we figure out if actions are right or wrong? Permissible or prohibited? Good or bad? This includes examining whether the intentions behind the act were good, whether the person acting was obligated or prohibited from the act, and of course looking at the nature of the act itself.
What we determine we should do or should not do is critical to the human experience; our relationships and how society functions broadly. I previously looked upon the field of ethics with disdain because I preferred metaphysics and epistemology (the other branches of philosophy) as real philosophy. However, I have since recanted such juvenility and now see that ethics is where our abstract principles confront with the real world. I am personally most interested in bioethics which deals with biological research, the practice of medicine, health policy, and what it means to be human.
There is obviously a lot more analysis and discussion needed on these theories and later I’ll dig deeper into their specific strengths and weaknesses. To be transparent, I am a theistic deontologist, however, I find it helpful to examine the multiple theories used to justify or condemn specific activities, policies, or ethical questions.
Thankfully, there’s this thing called ethics. Ethics is a field of philosophy that examines what we (moral agents) should do and how we should conduct ourselves. How do we figure out if actions are right or wrong? Permissible or prohibited? Good or bad? This includes examining whether the intentions behind the act were good, whether the person acting was obligated or prohibited from the act, and of course looking at the nature of the act itself.
What we determine we should do or should not do is critical to the human experience; our relationships and how society functions broadly. I previously looked upon the field of ethics with disdain because I preferred metaphysics and epistemology (the other branches of philosophy) as real philosophy. However, I have since recanted such juvenility and now see that ethics is where our abstract principles confront with the real world. I am personally most interested in bioethics which deals with biological research, the practice of medicine, health policy, and what it means to be human.
Theories of Ethics
There are four main historical traditions or theories of ethics that have different approaches to how we determine what is right and wrong. Each theory focuses on a different aspect of the equation in a moral action.1. Consequentialism: Focused on the outcome
This is the theory of ethics that says an act is good or bad based on the outcome of that act (i.e. the consequence). My son lost his first flag football game. When I asked him what he learned, I was hoping for some character-building lesson or ethical insight. Instead, he simply replied, “I learned that… it will be better when we win.” A consequentialist approach to ethics only looks at the final outcome. Therefore, a specific play in a flag football game is good or bad only based on if they won the game. The most popular form of this theory is utilitarianism that asserts activities are good if they result in “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” As long as the general level of happiness is increased by an action, then that end justifies the means.
(My nine-year-old son was not excited to be a model for this post, but his little sister was too happy to model the four ethical theories for us.)
2. Virtue ethics: Focused on the actor
This theory of ethics weighs moral activity based on the agent that is acting. Did the act contribute to building the virtue of the individual or did it arise from the individual’s virtue? An act is only good if it arises out of the moral goodness of the actor. Aristotle argues that moral goodness is being an excellent human being by balancing between moral extremes. So, the football players role and actions the game can only be judged by examining what virtues or vices he exhibited or developed, what were his intentions? Also, did the football player become a more excellent player in his practice of the sport?
3. Deontology: Focused on the action
This theory looks at whether an act is compliant with rational and universal moral principles or rules. Immanuel Kant developed the categorical imperative, an ethical principle that asserts an act is only good if it would be good for all others to act that same way. What kind of game would it be if each player on the field chose to act this way? The football player should follow the rules that are written to ensure all the players know their duty and obligation to everyone else in the game. The Deontology ethicist sees all activities as either permissible, impermissible, or obligatory.
4. Theological Voluntarism: Focused on worship
Is a specific action compliant with the metaphysical reality of the existence of, and imperatives from, God? The most popular version of this tradition is called the Divine Command Theory. But, this ethical theory is more than just did you follow the 10 Commandments, but did your actions flow from a correct relationship to the Divine Being? Did the flag football player seek to glorify God in this game? This demands us to know and follow commands from God, but also requires us to act out of love and devotion to God.
Comments
Post a Comment